Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40856093›Full record

ArticleMolecular ecology2025

Persistent Genomic Erosion in Whooping Cranes Despite Demographic Recovery.

Claudia Fontsere, Samuel A Speak, Andrew J Caven, Juan Antonio Rodríguez, Xuejing Wang, Carolina Pacheco, Molly Cassatt-Johnstone, Georgette Femerling, Brigid Maloney, Jennifer Balacco and 10 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular ecology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Ancient DNA from shells reveals delayed genomic erosion and rapid immune adaptation in the critically endangered black abalone.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors.

Claudia FontsereGlobe Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-2233-6026
Samuel A SpeakSchool of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4207-7562
Andrew J CavenInternational Crane Foundation, Baraboo, Wisconsin, USA.
Juan Antonio RodríguezGlobe Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Xuejing WangGlobe Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-1258-8214
Carolina PachecoBiology Department, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Molly Cassatt-JohnstoneDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, California, USA.
Georgette FemerlingDepartment of Human Genetics, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Brigid MaloneyVertebrate Genome Lab, The Rockefeller University, New York, New York, USA.
Jennifer BalaccoVertebrate Genome Lab, The Rockefeller University, New York, New York, USA.
Joanna CollinsVertebrate Genome Lab, The Rockefeller University, New York, New York, USA.
Ying SimsVertebrate Genome Lab, The Rockefeller University, New York, New York, USA.
Linelle AbuegVertebrate Genome Lab, The Rockefeller University, New York, New York, USA.
Olivier FedrigoVertebrate Genome Lab, The Rockefeller University, New York, New York, USA.
Erich D JarvisVertebrate Genome Lab, The Rockefeller University, New York, New York, USA.
Barry K HartupInternational Crane Foundation, Baraboo, Wisconsin, USA.
Beth ShapiroDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, California, USA.
M Thomas P GilbertGlobe Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-5805-7195
Cock van OosterhoutSchool of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Hernán E MoralesGlobe Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-2964-020X

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/S019669/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/X019683/1Chester ZooDanmarks Grundforskningsfond DNRF143European Union - Research Executive Agency ResQ, Project 101107083H2020 European Research Council 101078303H2020 European Research Council 681396Howard Hughes Medical InstituteNational Research FoundationNatural Environment Research Council 100162318RA1(RTSG)Natural Environment Research Council T209447U.S. Geological Survey
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Integrating in-situ (wild) and ex-situ (captive) conservation efforts can mitigate genetic diversity loss and help prevent extinction of endangered wild populations. The whooping crane (Grus americana) experienced severe population declines in the 18th century, culminating in a collapse to ~20 individuals by 1944. Legal protections and conservation actions have since increased the census population from a stock of 16 individuals to approximately 840 individuals, yet the impact on genomic diversity remains unclear. We analysed the temporal dynamics of genomic erosion by sequencing a high-quality reference genome, and re-sequencing 16 historical (years 1867-1893) and 37 modern (2007-2020) genomes, including wild individuals and four generations of captive-bred individuals. Genomic demographic reconstructions reveal a steady decline, accelerating over the past 300 years with the European settlement of North America. Temporal genomic analyses show that despite demographic recovery, the species has lost 70% of its historical genetic diversity and has increased its inbreeding. Although the modern population bottleneck reduced the ancestral genetic load, modern populations possess more realised load than masked load, possibly resulting in a chronic loss of fitness. Integrating pedigree and genomic data, we underscore the role of breeding management in reducing recent inbreeding. Yet ongoing heterozygosity loss, load accumulation, and persistent effects of historical inbreeding (i.e., background inbreeding) argue against the species' downlisting from its current Endangered status on the IUCN Red List and the Endangered Species Act. The presence of private genetic variation in wild and captive populations suggests that wild-captive crosses could enhance genetic diversity and reduce the realised load. Our findings emphasise the role of genomics in informing conservation management and policy.

Indexed as

BirdsGenetics, PopulationGenetic VariationGenomeAnimalsConservation of Natural ResourcesEndangered SpeciesGenomicsInbreedingPopulation Dynamicscaptive breedingconservation geneticsgenomic erosionpopulation genetics—empiricalwhooping crane

Identifiers

PMID40856093
PMCPMC12684310

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.